Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
no1canary

worhtys choice for gillingham and the season

Recommended Posts

is he going to play mckenzie? 99% of norwich want to see him start and deservedly so. started 5 sub 4 scored 5. he has always gone on about getting a 20 goal a season striker, and now we''ve got 1, he won''t play him because he doesn''t fit our formation. mcveigh needs a rest but he continues to play him, we need fresh legs in, thats what the squad is for so henderson should play on the right. done well against ipswich, assisting 1 and winning the free-kick for the other. roberts and svensson will share the big man role, but svensson still deserves a run in the team.

Team for Gillingham:

Green

Edworthy Mackay Fleming Drury

Henderson Francis Holt Huckerby

Svensson McKenzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do 99% want hi to play? i''ve always been sceptical about playing huckerby on the left,but if their right mid isnt much good then why not. i certainly feel sorry for leon,what more can he do than score every time he plays for us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i certainly dont want him to play. it would disrupt the team unnecessarily and make no tactical sense whatsoever. i''m sure leon isnt going to get disheartened. its not like hes being ignored or anything, he just doesnt fit into our formation at this moment in time. dropping huckerby, putting a striker on the wing, playing an unfamiliar 443 or playing two very similar players upfront are ridiculous suggestions and people should show a little more common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MUST win game tonight, 4-4-3:

Green

Shackell MacKay Fleming Drury

Henderson Holt Brennan

Mckenzie Svensson Huckerby

Subs: Crichton, Edworthy, Francis, McVeigh, Roberts

MUST win game since West Brom played Wigan at same day, it''s a good chance for us to strectch the gap between us and the Hawthorns side. Francis and Edworthy may need a little rest so Shackell can fill in to show his versatility, put 3 up front!!! I still think McKenzie in every game when he played for Norwich...



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit that I have never been a supporter of Worthy''s 4-3-3 system. It tends to have 2 downfalls:

One, as seen at West Brom away, he plays 2 wide players up front with a big man (in this case Harper, Roberts, Rivers). In this game, the team tended to slip into a 4-5-1, which meant Roberts was too isolated. Although we were tight at the back (beaten only by a Koumas wonder goal), we never really looked threatening up front.

The other, as seen at Rotherham away, is an all out attacking front row (now McKenzie, Roberts, Huckerby) which were lethal up front, but Leon and Huckers failed to tackle back, leaving the full backs exposed, hence 4-4.

But, having said that, this is Gillingham, at Carrow Road. If we play Leon, Sven and Hucks, but tighten up the midfield, perhaps with the inclusion of Brennan to ensure the defence are not left exposed, this plan is so crazy it might just work!

Saying that, I can''t see Worthy doing it, I would imagine he''s just going to stick with the 4-4-2 that has been good enough so far. But I reckon a little move around could shake us up a little, and supply us with something that we have been lacking lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy Carl, i fail to see how 4-3-3 is a ridiculous suggestion given that it was the only thing that looked like getting us into the game at Cardiff and makes us a potent attacking force as shown at Rotherham. Nottingham Forest used it at home last season with Huckerby Johnson and Harewood and a certain Jim Brennan also in the side so i don''t see why we can''t make it work with our back four.
It may leave us exposed at the back but as Splendid Rush said, as a home formation i can see it working very well and Gillingham are not one of the leagues heavier scorers.
It requires a solid and on form central three - preferably Francis or Mulryne as the fulcrum (depending on which one feels like turning up) flanked by Holt and Brennan, both defensively minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst I''m a fan of 4-3-3, playing a 4-4-2 is what got us top of the league - the players are comfortable in the formation and it makes us more solid defensively. I think 4-3-3 should only be used when we''re chasing a game, such as Saturday. As has been previously mentioned, the formation doesn''t protect the full backs and that can lead to trouble, if we''re not careful. There''s no point sticking Huckerby on the wing - we want him to be able to roam freely and cause havoc where he can. If we forced him to stay wide left, then drop back and help defensively, we''d be wasting our best player.

The only change I''d make tonight would be Mulryne for Francis. Love him or hate him, he passes the ball better than anyone else at the club, and we need to remember how to pass the ball. Also, Francis was poor on Saturday.

Oh, and I''d give the players the hair-dryer treatment before kick-off tonight - we can''t afford to keep turning in poor first half performances. As Saturday showed, teams will punish us and we''ll find ourselves "doing a Wolves"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly i dont think Gillingham will be coming to win tonite,therefore i suspect 4-5-1 from them
as they employed similar tatics against Preston Sat.That leaves a number of interesting options most have been covered and posted,i personally would go 3-5-2 with Huck playing
in a loose roll in and around the front two Svensson,McKenzie.In reality I think NW will go 4-4-2 with Mcv on the left and Hendo on the right Mckenzie on the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like that option too, Hucks just behind the front two, a new look midfield four with Edworthy right and Brennan left, with two of Holt Mullers and Francis, and Flem Malky and Shackell as a central three. Macca needs a rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...